amaniro:


Hmm you know I've not been active On Nairaland is just recently. And I'll be going back into Oblivion soon

I understand.....The Bayelsa case we have over-thrashed here sef.

fergie001:

Their case from even the HC was weak.

We are not arguing that. They went for the review, only to preserve Imo. They knew there was no case.

Lol. That Imo case is still sparking controversies because Nna ehh e get as the thing be. Supreme Court just obeyed existing protocols. Like I read here if Ihedioha should have won that case all most all the state election will be submitted for review by tomorrow Imo case is peculiar!

amaniro:



Lol. That Imo case is still sparking controversies because Nna ehh e get as the thing be. Supreme Court just obeyed existing protocols. Like I read here if Ihedioha should have won that case all most all the state election will be submitted for review by tomorrow Imo case is peculiar!

Exactly...........

.....but they have created more problems than solution.

IMO is always in the eye of the storm.

Ararume v PDP
Ohakim v Okorocha
Now...this

fergie001:

Exactly...........

.....but they have created more problems than solution.

IMO is always in the eye of the storm.

Ararume v PDP
Ohakim v Okorocha
Now...this

Dramatic State. Though I love their political sphere. It's not subjected to one party unlike the rest Igbo states

amaniro:


Dramatic State. Though I love their political sphere. It's not subjected to one party unlike the rest Igbo states

Too much of education..... They vote individuals not party.

fergie001:


Too much of education..... They vote individuals not party.

Yeah. Those Ngwa people are making Abia backward Politically. Abia north and central have moved on. In fact they voted APC last election but you see Abia south? Very backward people politically

amaniro:


Yeah. Those Ngwa people are making Abia backward Politically. Abia north and central have moved on. In fact they voted APC last election but you see Abia south? Very backward people politically

The governorship will go to Abia North in 2023. There was a Stakeholders meeting on Friday....the Dep-Gov will go to Central and the speakership to Abia South.

Johnson Onuigbo will be leaving as State Chairman to be replaced and it has been zoned to Abia South.

Let me TRY to be HOPEFUL that we will get it right then.

fergie001:


The governorship will go to Abia North in 2023. There was a Stakeholders meeting on Friday....the Dep-Gov will go to Central and the speakership to Abia South.

Johnson Onuigbo will be leaving as State Chairman to be replaced and it has been zoned to Abia South.

Let me TRY to be HOPEFUL that we will get it right then.

Nothing will change unless another party wins the state

amaniro:



Nothing will change unless another party wins the state

PDP is damn.too comfortable.

You think another party can win?
I doubt it.

amaniro:


Dramatic State. Though I love their political sphere. It's not subjected to one party unlike the rest Igbo states

How many political party now controls lmo state.

This statement is more like a gossip than fact.

fergie001:


Too much of education..... They vote individuals not party.

I bet to heavily disagree here.

If they vote individual and not party then Imo state suppose to be a multi party state.

MelesZenawi:


I bet to heavily disagree here.

If they vote individual and not party then Imo state suppose to be a multi party state.

In every state, there will be the mushroom parties and the main parties. Is there any state in the SE that have had the multiplicity of candidates from different parties than Imo?

Okorocha will never be Gov, if he were from Abia or Enugu State.

fergie001:

In every state, there will be the mushroom parties and the main parties. Is there any state in the SE that have had the multiplicity of candidates from different parties than Imo?

Okorocha will never be Gov, if he were from Abia or Enugu State.

Right from ages Anambra has been a load of different political parties both at senate and representatives with Apga holding the Governorship strong.

Ngige was a senator under ACN only then in SE, labour party won a representative seat....On 8th Senate it was APC , Apga and PDP..

Last election on Federal seat it was shared among APGA, YPP and PDP...

State house of assembly shared among APGA and PDP......local government shared among LP, apga, pdp....


So telling me they vote individual is heavy lie and should be debunked. Any state that votes individual there are bound to be multi-party politics there meaning one party can't detect the tune alone.


Apga here can't dictate the tune because they will be wary of pdp, APC, ypp knowing they have elected officials occupying elective post as them..


When I see multi-party system I will know.

MelesZenawi:

.

Suit yourself

fergie001:

You are passionate about this fine for reasons best known to you but I need you to take out emotions and calm down.

No two cases are the same. The case of Bayelsa was thrashed excitingly well here some weeks ago. Legally, Degi had no case as the error(s) had been made by his lawyers from the lower court and he showed an aptitude for been chameleonic. Section 187(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as ammended) also made his case affect Lyon.

If you want to be honest, Uncle Wole and Aare didn't quote any technical (or human) error, they only based on the fact that the lower court was silent on certain prayers that the SC upheld. Judicial precedent can tell us that the FHC judgement isn't binding on the SC. We have dealt with this extensively in the last few weeks.

In the case of Imo, there are clear errors pointed out. I support the SC's stance on not reviewing it (because it will call for ceaseless litigations) but they could have sought a way to correct inter alia some fascinating lacuna in their judgement.

1)The issue of spread which Hope and ultimately Ihedioha didn't enjoy as enshrined in Section 179(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as ammended).

2) The issue of valid votes higher than the number of accredited voters.

The judgement is for all ages, and this is going to be a big problem for INEC as the Edo and Ondo elections beckon.

Lawyers will seize every opportunity to quote and link this judgement, politicians as well aren't fools. Since the SC has legitimised it( so to speak), win at all costs with or without credence to any of the two reasons above.

The Omehia/Amaechi case is an example where the SC had to reverse itself 11 years later. This judgement post-2023, will judiciously die permanently.

Their thinking is let us allow all parties lick their wounds, and let's move on.

For the fine...following the uproar, it will be unearthing pandora box.

...Iamgrey5, let's move on, ok?

senatordave1 dansuqi kahal29 ejimatic amaniro Agboriotejoye lostz losC ChristianNorth, are we together?

Of course I agree. Let it be clear that no one faults the logic applied by the supreme court in arriving at the judgment. It is true that the electoral act ordinarily assumes that elections held in all polling units except proven otherwise. It can also be accepted that a duplicate can replace the original and of course the police are given a copy of results at each polling units for records and reconciliation purposes. So the judgment in itself is sound. What is faulty though is the circumstances of this particular case especially the primary evidence which is the 388 polling units results with all the shenanigans that followed it. A clear mistake of the supreme court though is its seeming refusal to recognize the power of INEC to cancel elections which I believe ended up dragging it into the fraud it unwittingly committed. It would have been safer for them to have gone along with INEC's position and order a rerun in those 388 PUs than to have given judgment based on an unauthenticated, incomplete and illogical result. It has really darkened their otherwise white garments.

Be that as it may, a refusal to award costs and a dissenting judgment is fair enough evidence that the justices agree in principle that they made a mistake. Whether they were right by sustaining the mistake in supposed defense of a phantom finality is what history will be left to judge. But I don't see how they will be judged right in this matter.

However, I need learned men to help clarify once and for all if it is indeed true that the supreme court is not allowed by the constitution to entertain reviews and if so, why are the most senior lawyers approaching them for such then?

Agboriotejoye:


[b]Of course I agree. Let it be clear that no one faults the logic applied by the supreme court in arriving at the judgment. It is true that the electoral act ordinarily assumes that elections held in all polling units except proven otherwise. It can also be accepted that a duplicate can replace the original and of course the police are given a copy of results at each polling units for records and reconciliation purposes. So the judgment in itself is sound. What is faulty though is the circumstances of this [/b]particular case especially the primary evidence which is the 388 polling units results with all the shenanigans that followed it. A clear mistake of the supreme court though is its seeming refusal to recognize the power of INEC to cancel elections which I believe ended up dragging it into the fraud it unwittingly committed. It would have been safer for them to have gone along with INEC's position and order a rerun in those 388 PUs than to have given judgment based on an unauthenticated, incomplete and illogical result. It has really darkened their otherwise white garments.

Be that as it may, a refusal to award costs and a dissenting judgment is fair enough evidence that the justices agree in principle that they made a mistake. Whether they were right by sustaining the mistake in supposed defense of a phantom finality is what history will be left to judge. But I don't see how they will be judged right in this matter.

However, I need learned men to help clarify once and for all if it is indeed true that the supreme court is not allowed by the constitution to entertain reviews and if so, why are the most senior lawyers approaching them for such then?

At the bolded,i drummer it into your ears severally yet you refused to agree with me.how many times will i tell you that only presiding officers at the polling unit can cancel results? In the case of imo,cancelations happened at collation level.what pdp should have done right from the tribunal is to cross appeal for cancellations of those results.
Stop speaking from both sides,you agree that originsl and duplicate are same and need no authentication yet you blame the court for not authenticating.
A review can only be granted if there was a grave and clear mistake or if the law was wrongly quoted or not taken consideration while judging.there was nothing of such in imo.awarding costs in imo or anywhere is purely at the discretion of the court.

senatordave1:


At the bolded,i drummer it into your ears severally yet you refused to agree with me.how many times will i tell you that only presiding officers at the polling unit can cancel results? In the case of imo,cancelations happened at collation level.what pdp should have done right from the tribunal is to cross appeal for cancellations of those results.
Stop speaking from both sides,you agree that originsl and duplicate are same and need no authentication yet you blame the court for not authenticating.
A review can only be granted if there was a grave and clear mistake or if the law was wrongly quoted or not taken consideration while judging.there was nothing of such in imo.awarding costs in imo or anywhere is purely at the discretion of the court.

Why did you not read what I wrote dispassionately before jumping in to disgrace yourself?

Kindly show us where it was revealed that the elections were cancelled at collation level.
Kindly show were I said duplicates do not need authentication.
You can also show us how the issue of spread was taken into consideration by the judgment.
You lots in one breath say the court can't rule on what is not before it, then turn back to say that is a ground for review. Are you sure you're ok? Pls do better before you quote me next. Read and understand what I wrote.

Agboriotejoye:


Why did you not read what I wrote dispassionately before jumping in to disgrace yourself?

Kindly show us where it was revealed that the elections were cancelled at collation level.
Kindly show were I said duplicates do not need authentication.
You can also show us how the issue of spread was taken into consideration by the judgment.
You lots in one breath say the court can't rule on what is not before it, then turn back to say that is a ground for review. Are you sure you're ok? Pls do better before you quote me next. Read and understand what I wrote.

Ihedioha's lawyers refused to seize the day.
Uzodinma's agents testified in court that the results were rejected at collation level.
Last week sunday,we thrashed the issue of spread with fergie and kahal who brought a vanguard report about the spread.i deduced that with the new results hope got 25% everywhere except in 6 lgas of mbaise and owerri.
There are political considerations also whether we like it or not.the judges are human and know what is happening in nigeria.with the loss of bayelsa,imo was a fait accomplish.it is a draw game.

For the sake of your health and sanity,lets end this matter.uzodinma remains till 2028 while diri rules till 2023 except apc does not retain aso rock

senatordave1:

Ihedioha's lawyers refused to seize the day.
Uzodinma's agents testified in court that the results were rejected at collation level.
Last week sunday,we thrashed the issue of spread with fergie and kahal who brought a vanguard report about the spread.i deduced that with the new results hope got 25% everywhere except in 6 lgas of mbaise and owerri.
There are political considerations also whether we like it or not.the judges are human and know what is happening in nigeria.with the loss of bayelsa,imo was a fait accomplish.it is a draw game.

For the sake of your health and sanity,lets end this matter.uzodinma remains till 2028 while diri rules till 2023 except apc does not retain aso rock

I'm sure you would have done a better job than Ihedioha's lawyers if given the case.
Thank God you now used the right word. REJECTION/EXCLUSION at collation was based on CANCELLATION at PUs thus, there were NO RESULTS. Note also that INEC never said they REJECTED results. INEC's stand has always been that the elections were CANCELLED at the PUs. Hope you can spot the difference.

I did not know previously that Vanguard is the court of review with you as the Chief Justice. Now that you have brought that to my notice. I guess there's no need to argue further.

Your "political consideration" is an euphemism for my "darkened their white garments". Only history will judge if indeed that was their intendment and if so whether they were right to adopt that line.

Let's hope your political prophesy about Imo and Bayelsa stands the test of time. Suffice it to say that previous politics in both states suggest to the contrary. My health and sanity is not tied to any of these. I only react as a concerned citizen. I hope such is the case for you. Good luck